


Guilt

by FatalGrace



Series: FatalGrace's Quick and Dirty Guide to the Maryland Criminal Justice System (kind of) [2]
Category: Hannibal (TV), Hannibal Lecter Series - All Media Types
Genre: Fanwork Research & Reference Guides, Hannibal Reference, Research
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2015-09-29
Updated: 2015-09-29
Packaged: 2018-04-24 00:10:30
Rating: Not Rated
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 1
Words: 954
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/4897651
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/FatalGrace/pseuds/FatalGrace
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>GUILTY!!! Or...not? Quick and dirty explanation of how guilt is determined.</p>
            </blockquote>





	Guilt

Let’s talk about guilt. Specifically, what makes a person guilty of a crime? There’s two main parts of guilt, and they even come with snazzy-sounding latin names: actus reus and mens rea, which mean ‘guilty act’ and ‘guilty mind’ respectively. Mens rea can be defined differently depending on whether you’re using the Model Penal Code definition or the Common Law definition (

 

Defining a guilty act is pretty easy, right? It’s an action that is wrong, either in and of itself (malum in se) or something that is wrong because the law of the land makes it so (malum prohibita). A malum in se crime is something like murder, rape, or arson, whereas a malum prohibita crime would be something like speeding, smoking weed, or paying for sex (solicitation of a prostitute). Interestingly enough, actus reus can also be caused by failing to act in a situation where there is a legal duty to act. You know. Like being a doctor and not telling someone that their brain is basically melting from Encephalitis. Things like that. 

So where does the guilty mind come in? Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on who you are, I suppose) guilty mind has absolutely nothing to do with how guilty you feel. Rather, guilty mind is your intent. The four elements of intent under the Model Penal Code are (in descending order of severity) purposely/willingly, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently. 

Here’s an example. 

Scenario 1:  
Joe McMurderface really hates his neighbor, Victimguy, because he’s got bushes in his front yard and painted his door pink, even though that’s clearly against the rules of the Homeowner’s association. So Joe decides to do something about it. He goes to the local hardware store to buy some plastic sheeting, duct tape, a chainsaw, and cinder blocks. Then he watches Victimguy for a couple days, figures out when he’s going to be home alone, and kills him. Then he covers Victimguy’s garage with plastic, chops Victimguy up, bags the body parts, and ties cinderblocks to the body parts before dropping them off the nearest bridge.

Scenario 2:  
Joe McMurderface really hates his neighbor’s pink door. He wishes that guy would just repaint the damn thing. And those bushes in the front yard are awful looking. Victimguy is such a dick.  
One day, Joe notices that Victimguy is home alone. He decides to go over and have a chat with Victimguy and see if he can convince him to at least repaint the door. The two end up talking in Victimguy’s garage, but the talk turns into an argument, and eventually Joe just can’t take it anymore. He grabs a hammer off the workbench and hits Victimguy in the temple, killing him instantly. 

Scenario 3:  
Joe McMurderface really hates how his neighbor, Victimguy, keeps his yard. It always looks trashy. Joe’s yard shares a line of trees with Victimguy’s yard, so Joe decides he’s going to take care of clearing out the dead branches, since obviously Victimguy isn’t going to do it. Joe grabs a ladder and a chainsaw and climbs up into one of the trees. Joe doesn’t really bother looking below him as he’s sawing off branches. He figures if one of the branches falls on Victimguy’s side of the tree line, it serves him right. Victimguy comes home from work and decides to see what his neighbor is up to. Unfortunately, as soon as he steps under the tree, Joe finishes cutting through the branch and it falls on Victimguy, who later dies of his injuries.

 

Wow, looks like Joe’s got some anger issues. He should probably talk to someone about that. Like his lawyer. Anyway….

In Scenario 1, Joe has committed first degree murder as defined under § 2-201 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, which defines first degree murder as “ (1) a deliberate, premeditated, and willful killing...”. That sounds kind of familiar, doesn’t it? Deliberate, premeditated, and willful pretty much cover the two most severe elements of intent, willingly and knowingly.

In Scenario 2, Joe was pretty willing to whack Victimguy over the head, but he didn’t really plan it out ahead of time. You could also say that it was pretty reckless of him to go swinging a hammer at another guy’s head. Even though Joe might not have meant for Victimguy to die, he still intended to at least harm Victimguy, so this still satisfies mens rea.

In Scenario 3, Joe was just plain negligent, and depending on how good the prosecutor is, he could be considered reckless as well. I don’t know about you, but if I’m chopping branches out of trees, I at least try to holler a “look out below” before I finish. (Then again, I also try not to wander under trees when there’s clearly someone up there with a chainsaw, but that’s for the defense to argue.)

 

So there you have it. A crime is determined by looking at the act + the intent + the result. In Scenario 2, if Victimguy had survived, Joe wouldn’t have been charged with murder/manslaughter, but would probably have been charged with attempted second degree murder (§ 2-201, 2-204, 2-206), and possibly assault in the first degree (§ 3-202).  
In Scenario 3, if Victimguy had survived, Joe would probably be charged with reckless endangerment (§ 3-204) if the case remained criminal, or he might only be subject to a civil penalty for personal injury or something like that. 

Now, if you’ve been following along in the Annotated Code, you might have noticed that some of the definitions are frustratingly vague. So how do we define a crime if the law doesn’t? That’s where Common Law and the Model Penal Code come in. Hold onto your eyeteeth, cuz it’s gonna be a bumpy ride!

**Author's Note:**

> Things I used to write this:  
> http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/mdcode/  
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law  
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code


End file.
